Hester
msg:3803246 | 9:46 am on Dec 9, 2008 (gmt 0) |
| speculative parsing for faster content rendering |
|
What exactly is that?
|
JS_Harris
msg:3803293 | 11:58 am on Dec 9, 2008 (gmt 0) |
| A new Private Browsing Mode that allows you to browse without Firefox storing any traces of where you�ve been - perfect for online holiday shopping! |
|
Is 3.1 Beta2 ushering in the death of affiliate marketing? No cookies = no refferal fees. Does the "any trace" include cookies too?
|
henry0
msg:3803299 | 12:15 pm on Dec 9, 2008 (gmt 0) |
Why does the downloadable exec comes from .ru
I stopped it
does yours too come from Russia?
|
JS_Harris
msg:3803306 | 12:39 pm on Dec 9, 2008 (gmt 0) |
Not enough material to read and no feedback yet so I haven't downloaded it. If the new version blocks affiliates by default a lot of sites will pack it in though I can't imagine Mozilla would think it's a good idea to block cookies by default. Waiting patiently to hear on the matter...
|
koan
msg:3803319 | 1:17 pm on Dec 9, 2008 (gmt 0) |
| No cookies = no refferal fees. |
|
No cookies, no login on many sites requiring user accounts, so I doubt they disable it during the session, ideally they would just erase it all when the browser is closed.
|
JS_Harris
msg:3803346 | 1:55 pm on Dec 9, 2008 (gmt 0) |
So long as the affiliate code sticks when the visitors changes sites... Clearing cookies when the browser is closed already exists so it's not the "new" they're talking about(see:tools/options/private data). I wonder how many millions of dollars that little checkbox has cost affiliates. [edited by: JS_Harris at 1:57 pm (utc) on Dec. 9, 2008]
|
henry0
msg:3803347 | 1:59 pm on Dec 9, 2008 (gmt 0) |
| ideally they would just erase it all when the browser is closed. |
|
As per computerWorld it works as described above I earlier mentioned a download.ru
I guess they offer a random d-load location to balance the downloads heavy traffic, the next one when I tried again was .de
|
nealrodriguez
msg:3803504 | 4:52 pm on Dec 9, 2008 (gmt 0) |
the un of browsers
|
GaryK
msg:3803562 | 5:37 pm on Dec 9, 2008 (gmt 0) |
I don't get what they mean about 2.x users being offered a free [developer.mozilla.org] upgrade? Is that some silly attempt at humor? Or perhaps a lame attempt at marketing?
|
weeks
msg:3803665 | 7:38 pm on Dec 9, 2008 (gmt 0) |
| I don't get what they mean about 2.x users being offered a free upgrade? Is that some silly attempt at humor? Or perhaps a lame attempt at marketing? |
|
I saw that as well. Couldn't make it make sense.
|
Robert Charlton
msg:3803912 | 1:51 am on Dec 10, 2008 (gmt 0) |
| ...2.x users being offered a free upgrade... |
|
Maybe that's the next step before they offer to pay users to upgrade. ;) Note that the upgrade choices are "Later"/ "Never"/ "Get the new version"... and that "Never" doesn't mean never. Is it faster?
|
henry0
msg:3804193 | 12:01 pm on Dec 10, 2008 (gmt 0) |
You better keep your prior version (anyway this beta won't overwrite a previous version if d-loaded in another dir/)
Reason: 3.1 has almost none of the usual plugins available such as yslow etc...
|
|
